Case Background
This case arose from Bakhri P.S. Case No. 25 of 2007, in the district of Begusarai. The written information (fardbeyan) was recorded on 25.03.2007 at about 05:00 PM. The informant was the son of the deceased, Sukho Sada.
According to the fardbeyan, the deceased and his brother had taken palm and date trees on lease and used to draw and sell toddy. On 25.03.2007 at around 04:00 PM, the informant, his father and his maternal uncle (Mama) Satan Sada went to a palm tree belonging to one Ramkishun Mahto to draw toddy.
The informant stated that at about 04:50 PM, when they reached near the palm tree, the accused, a neighbouring shop owner, arrived there. The deceased allegedly accused the accused of stealing toddy-filled clay pots. A hot exchange followed. The accused’s father Nand Lal, and two others, Damodar Mahto and Ramkishun Mahto, were said to be present with him.
The informant further claimed that, during this altercation, the accused went to his house, brought a pistol, and shot the deceased on the neck. The informant’s Mama was said to be on the palm tree at that time, and threats were allegedly made against him as well. According to the informant, the accused and others fled, and the deceased died on the spot.
After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused alone. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, took cognizance on 05.07.2007. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 01.08.2007. Charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed on 09.10.2007.
The trial was conducted as Sessions Trial No. 360 of 2007 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Begusarai. By judgment dated 25.03.2010 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2010, the trial court convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, sentences to run concurrently.
Against this conviction, the accused filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2010 before the Patna High Court. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ansul heard the appeal. The judgment of the High Court is dated 01.10.2026.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court carefully examined the entire evidence led at trial. Fourteen witnesses were examined, including the informant and the investigating officer.
The Court first noted that the independent witnesses turned hostile. P.W.1 Binod Mahto, P.W.2 Savitri Devi and P.W.4 Prayag Rai did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.
P.W.3 Satan Sada, the deceased’s relative, was projected in the FIR as a key companion at the time of occurrence. In chief, he broadly supported the story that a dispute arose and the accused shot the deceased. But under cross-examination, his own words showed that he was not actually an eyewitness.
He said he used to draw toddy himself and that on 25.03.2007 at 06:00 PM he was at his residence. He admitted that at 06:15 PM he was not with the deceased, who had already died. He further said there was only one sound of firing and no customers were present. Crucially, he stated that when he came down from the palm tree, he saw the deceased already lying fallen near the palm tree with a gunshot injury, and that he did not see anyone standing there. He also said that, after the occurrence, persons like Etwari Sada, Pawan Sada and others arrived.
The Court held that these statements clearly showed he had not seen the firing itself, contradicting the FIR version and making him not an eyewitness.
P.W.5 Jabahar Singh described himself only as a hearsay witness. He said people at the spot were saying the accused had killed the deceased and that P.W.7 Etwari Sada was also saying so. Thus his evidence was only based on what others told him.
P.W.6 Ashok Sada, brother of the deceased, initially claimed to be near the palm tree and to have seen the accused fetch a pistol and shoot Sukho Sada. He also said he signed the fardbeyan and was witness to the FIR and inquest report. But his cross-examination demolished this claim.
He admitted that at about 04:00–04:15 PM he left his house and that about an hour later the news came that his brother had been killed. In para 22 he clearly said that P.W.3 Satan came to the house and informed that Sukho Sada had been killed. Only then did he, along with his wife Khakhri Devi, the informant and others, go to the spot where they found the deceased already dead.
He further deposed that criminals had come to his shop earlier, threatened the deceased over toddy payments about ten days before the killing, and that after that the deceased had not gone to the shop for 5–6 days. He said his sister-in-law Khakhri Devi, out of fear, did not take any criminal’s name, and that the police took her statement and left thumb impression. However, her statement did not appear anywhere in the case diary.
The High Court found from this testimony that P.W.6 was in fact not an eyewitness. His evidence instead highlighted that some unknown criminals had previously threatened the deceased and that the first information was most likely given by the deceased’s wife, whose statement the police did not produce.
P.W.7 Etwari Sada also initially claimed to be an eyewitness and signatory to the inquest and FIR. But in para 10, he said that he was at a Khaini-Biri shop when he heard the cry (hulla) that his brother had been killed, and when he reached the place he only saw the dead body. He further stated that on his hulla several persons including P.W.10 (informant), P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.9, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.2 came there. In para 12 he admitted giving a similar statement to police. The High Court held this showed he also was not an eyewitness.
P.W.8 and P.W.11 were purely post-occurrence witnesses and did not see the incident. P.W.9 Hito Sada said he heard the sound of firing, went to the accused’s house and then heard that the accused had killed the deceased. He, too, did not witness the shooting.
P.W.10, the informant and son of the deceased, claimed in the FIR to be an eyewitness. But his claim was contradicted by P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.7, who all made it clear that he arrived at the place of occurrence only after the killing.
The Court also noticed that P.W.10 himself admitted in para 22 that Satan came back shouting about the killing and then he, his mother, Etwari Sada, Jabahar Sada and Ashok Sada went to the place and found the body lying on the ground. This, in the Court’s view, ruled out his presence at the time of firing.
He further stated in para 23 that he had captured 12–13 katthas of the accused’s land after his father’s killing. The High Court appears to have treated this as revealing a motive for animosity on his side, further cautioning against relying solely on his version.
The medical evidence, given by P.W.12 Dr. Binod Kumar Sharma, confirmed that the deceased died a homicidal death from a single gunshot injury on the neck, with an entry wound on the left and exit wound on the right, showing blackening and tattooing. The defence did not dispute the homicidal nature of death. However, no evidence was led about the distance of firing.
The investigation came under strong criticism. The investigating officer P.W.14 said that he found blood at the spot and seized it, and that the formal FIR was lodged at 11:00 PM though the occurrence was at about 04:15 PM. The inquest report was prepared at 05:45 PM and already carried the FIR number “25 of 2007” in column 1, even though the formal FIR was registered only at 11:00 PM.
The High Court treated this as a clear sign that the FIR was “antedated” and not a spontaneous first version. It observed that police appeared to have reached the place of occurrence on their own information within those seven hours, recorded a first version from the deceased’s wife, and then suppressed it.
The Court noted that, despite P.W.6 stating that the police recorded Khakhri Devi’s statement and took her thumb impression at the spot, the case diary did not contain her statement at all. The Court considered her the most natural and important witness, being the deceased’s wife who reached immediately after the killing.
The Court drew an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for withholding this material witness. It held that when such an essential witness is not examined and her recorded statement is missing from the case diary, it can be presumed that her evidence would have gone against the prosecution case.
The High Court also referred to the law on delayed and manipulated FIRs as discussed by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393, Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, and Chhotkau v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 742. The Court emphasised the danger of post-investigation “manufactured” FIRs which lack spontaneity.
Section 157 Cr.P.C. requires that copies of the FIR be sent to the Magistrate “forthwith”. The Court noted that even if “forthwith” is taken as 24 hours, in this case the FIR reached the Magistrate only on 28.03.2007, two days after the occurrence and the supposed recording of fardbeyan. Given the other suspicious circumstances—antedating of the inquest, absence of the wife’s statement, contradictions of alleged eyewitnesses—this delay became significant evidence of manipulation.
The investigating officer also admitted that the seized blood was never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. No murder weapon was recovered. No empty cartridge or other objective material from a firearm was found. He did not find any toddy pot or “Hasuli” at the spot, nor any footprints. This undermined the very story that the deceased had gone there to draw toddy.
Further, in para 18 of his deposition, the officer said they came to know about the occurrence through a rumour, that a station diary entry was made but he neither mentioned the station diary number in the case diary nor remembered if the entry recorded who had killed the deceased. The Court read this, along with the other irregularities, as supporting the defence claim that some miscreants who had earlier threatened the deceased may have killed him and that the accused was later roped in due to prior animosity.
The High Court also relied on the principle explained in Tahsildar Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012, that when a witness’s own cross-examination contradicts his chief examination, such inherent contradictions can make his testimony unreliable without the need for formal proof of contradictions from prior statements.
Here, several prosecution witnesses who claimed in chief to be eyewitnesses, in cross-examination admitted facts that clearly showed they were not present at the time of the killing. The Court therefore held that no reliance could be placed on any of them as eyewitnesses.
Taking all this together—dubious FIR and inquest timing, suppression of the wife’s statement, non-examination of a key witness, contradictory and unreliable “eyewitnesses”, lack of forensic follow-up, and non-recovery of the weapon—the Court found serious doubt about the prosecution story and held that the case could not stand on its own legs.
Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the criminal appeal. It set aside the conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2010 and 29.03.2010 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 360 of 2007. The accused, who had been on bail since 05.07.2011, was acquitted of all charges and discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has strong practical importance for ordinary people, especially in rural areas, who may face criminal accusations based mainly on oral statements.
First, the Patna High Court shows that when police do not properly record and present the first, natural version of an incident, courts will treat their case with deep suspicion. Suppressing the account of the closest witness—in this case the deceased’s wife—and showing only later, polished versions can lead to acquittal.
Second, the decision emphasises that people cannot be convicted for serious offences like murder if claimed eyewitnesses later admit that they actually came after the incident. Courts will not rely on such shifting stories.
Third, the judgment underlines that investigation must be complete and fair. Failure to collect physical evidence like weapon, cartridges, blood samples, or objects from the spot, and failure to send seized blood to FSL, all weaken the prosecution case.
Finally, the judgment reminds families of victims that, while they may strongly suspect someone, the criminal justice system requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the investigation is defective and the first report appears manufactured, even a person earlier convicted for life imprisonment may be acquitted in appeal.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shot and killed the deceased, justifying his conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the FIR appeared antedated and fabricated, the key witness (wife of the deceased) was withheld, alleged eyewitnesses were unreliable, and the investigation was seriously deficient. The prosecution case was disbelieved and the appellant was acquitted.
Issue: Whether suppression of the deceased’s wife as a witness and non-production of her recorded statement had legal consequences for the prosecution.
Answer: Yes. The Court applied Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding a material witness essential to unfolding the case, which further weakened the prosecution version.
Issue: Whether delay and irregularity in lodging and forwarding the FIR affected its reliability as the first version.
Answer: Yes. Considering the seven-hour gap, antedated inquest report, two-day delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, and other suspicious circumstances, the Court held that the FIR lacked spontaneity and appeared to be a manufactured document, tainting the entire prosecution case.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393
- Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188
- Chhotkau v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 742
- Tahsildar Singh and Another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2010; CNR No. BRHC010368462010
Case Title: Pradeep Mahto v. State of Bihar
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ansul
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 01.10.2026
Impugned Judgment: Judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2010 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 360 of 2007, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Begusarai
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 326
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM0MzgjMjAxMCMxI04=-1OluedmbdPo=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
